Govco

Why is it that Govco thinks it knows better than us or knows what’s best for us? A recent poster here got me thinking of this, again. I have posted about Govco many times and their intrusion on our lives but, yet again…here we go. Now they are wanting to ban salt from resturants in food prep in NY. What the???

You know, this is not just one party either. Democrats think we are all stupid and they must step in and tell us how to do things or when to do them or how much. Republicans want to tell you who you can sleep with, what you can in the bedroom and who you can marry.

ENOUGH!!!! Let us live. As long as we don’t infrige on the rights of others, who gives a flying crap what I do??? If I want to drive without a seatbelt…SO WHAT??? If I want to smoke a joint in the privacy of my own home… SO WHAT? If I want to marry some dude…SO WHAT???

I agree Writer but does that mean any change is ok? That we shouldn’t voice our frustrations? I hear voices like yours alot in regards to Obama. I hear people say “Why are people always getting on him? Can’t they just let him do his job? Can’t they just let up and give him a chance?” as if we should just sit back and let him do whatever. What kind of freedom loving people would we be if we didn’t make our voices heard?

Less government is always better. I don’t think Roland ever said anything about Government being “perfect”.

It doesn’t cost $6,000,000 to build three miles of road. Thank your government for that.

The local water company in Washington State has fraudulently billed me four times and filed illegal documents to force me to agree to an easement because the county cistern is on my property. That’s your government in action.

Libraries? The internet is a vast library, unregulated and unowned by the government. Is it any wonder that it’s faster, cheaper, and more thorough than anything the assheads in office have managed to put together?

There are only TWO things the federal government should do. PERIOD:

1) Establish and control currency.

2) Protect the safety and sovereignty of the nation.

Maybe if we restrict them to those two things they’ll manage to get something right for a frickin’ change.

If you don’t wear that seatbelt and get critically injured in an accident you impact me. You will probably sue the other driver, your insurance company will have to pay your medical for the rest of your life and my premiums will go up because I’m paying for your medical and the lawsuit.

You smoke that joint, get addicted, become a pothead who doesn’t work and can’t take care of himself and go on welfare. That impacts me because I am working and paying taxes so that welfare exists. And, please don’t say this is unusual. I have personal knowledge.

Sorry on this one, Roland. What we do impacts other people.

As for marriage, the government should not be involved in marriage at all. But since it is, there is very little that cannot be solved legally by a gay couple by just seeing a lawyer. Estate issues, custody issues, etc. Gays buy houses everyday, get jobs, have joint checking accounts. One thing is getting survivor pension, but pensions are a dinosaur anyway. Both partners probably work and have their own if they are smart. You can make anyone have power over your financial affairs with a Power of Attorney and having a living will for medical issues. Not sure why gays want to “marry” anyway. You get way more government benefits as a single person.

NOW ROLAND WE MAY NOT AGREE ON PITBULLS BUT THIS IS DEFINATELY ONE THING THAT WE CAN AGREE ON. LIKE YOU SAID THEY NEED TO GET OUT OF OUR LIVES AND LET US LIVE THEM. IF I WANNA EAT A HAMBURGER OR A STEAK THATS RARE LEAVE ME ALONE OR WHATEVER. ITS MY RIGHT TO DO WHAT I WANT AS LONG AS I AM ONLY HARMING MYSLEF AND NOT ANYONE ELSE. SO YOU ARE RIGHT THEY NEED TO LIVE THEIR OWN LIVES AND GET OUTOF OURS….

Robin, it doesn’t matter. Govco should not be in the business of regulating prices. If I want to be stupid and not wear a helmet or seatbelt, that is MY choice. Government should not mandate something just because it makes some things cost more. Plus, the whole “insurance rates will go up” is simply a strawman.

Same thing with the pot. What I do in my own home doesn’t affect you. If I get on the street and do something that affects your rights, sure. But, your example is very weak. Plus, you could say the exact same thing about beer, wine, McDonalds, shopping..anything you can get addicted to. Why not ban everything? If pot is so wrong, so is alcohol as it does the same thing to you.

Why is rates going up a strawman. Do you have homeowners insurance? Mine went up about 33% after 9/11 and hurricane Andrew. The insurance companies don’t suck that cost in, they distribute it to us.

And I do say it about everything you mentioned that you can get addicted to. I would ban everything. Alcohol, pot and drugs destroy lives. You obviously from your comments do not have anyone close to you whose life has been destroyed or died from the above mentioned recreational products. It all sounds good on paper until it is translated into real life.

Everything you do effects other people in one way or another. I think government should mind it’s own business, but that is not the reality of the world we live in. It’s all intertwined.

Does this mean you guys are done talking about health care and Obama hating profits on the other thread? I was hoping for, I dunno, a response.

Jenny, you really thought this was a good article? It didn’t give any information about the proposed ban (which seems to be just a random bill introduced that is going nowhere and wouldn’t really alter anybody’s freedoms anyway) and there is basically no reasoning supporting the conclusion that the proposed bill is bad. Maybe it is bad, I don’t know. First of all, who cares? But also, if you are going to bother to write about how it is bad, at least make a cogent argument for why it is bad besides rhetorical questions.

I think there are some interesting ideas underlying this debate (in general, not necessarily the salt ban in particular) about soft paternalism. If people can be influenced to make better decisions, is it always wrong to give those kinds of incentives?

I am sympathetic to some of your libertarian leanings, Roland – like with sex partners and drug use – but there are other areas where soft paternalism can exist to promote better decisions overall. The salt ban is not a big deal, even if it did pass. People would still be free to eat salty foods. They would just be more aware of their sodium intake because they would be adding it themselves. So the marijuana prohibition or anti-sodomy laws are a bad analogy. A better one would be warning labels on cigarettes. People are still free to smoke them, but they have an increased awareness of the health consequences, and that is probably better for them and for all of us who are affected indirectly.

I don’t think Roland was too concerned about the salt issue which is why he didn’t go into detail on it. It’s more of “yet another Governmant intrusion!” Although, I may be speaking out of turn..it’s his blog.

This is yet another example of government getting in our business. Yeah, it doesn’t really affect me yet but it’s the slipperly slope. Who would have thought 20 years ago they would be, in some areas of the country, banning smoking in private homes? Or that Government would be looking for ways to ban certain kinds of food? We would have scoffed at the idea back then.

We would have scoffed at the idea that someone could sit down at an electronic box in their living room and send messages across the world, too, but just because something wasn’t thought of a generation ago doesn’t mean it is bad. It could be bad. But you need to do more before you will convince someone it is bad. You can’t just say “IT IS BAD!” That’s arguing like a child.

I probably won’t have sex if I had a cold because I wouldn’t want to. Bad analogy. I don’t like government intrusion. However, everyone does not adhere to the same moral standards unfortunately, so there has to be some government regulation or anarchy prevails.

Roland, you didn’t even link to a story describing the proposed salt ban. Did you actually look into it at all before you wrote something about it or did you just hear some talk radio personality denounce it and echo their judgment?

After all, who needs facts or arguments when you have BeckHannityLimaughO’Reily already feeding you your opinions?

I do have a life. I don’t live off welfare and sleep all day D.M. but, none the less, I have corrected the link. My apologies.

No, no echos here. It was in much of the “regular” news. Regardless though of who someone might quote from or which side, I would hope you would not take the Elrod approach and ignore the message and shoot the messenger. He was famous for that.

Congratulations on your life and I hope it is going really well. It must not be though, because you are always so cranky on this blog. It’s not a matter of not having a life, just having a life with a computer nearby to check on your own blog and respond on your own posts.

It’s just that if you have the time to write a blog post, why not make it a good one? Why not actually have a message? I don’t know you personally and never used any personal attacks on you to try to discredit what you were trying to say. I’ve just pointed out that, well, you didn’t say anything. You just shouted that you didn’t like something and that’s fine, but if you want to write a good post, write about what the thing is that you don’t like and use some reasoning to explain why you don’t like it. That’s the difference between an argument and a bumper sticker.

Yes, thanks for the intriguing lesson on how to blog on ones own blog. I don’t think Roland is going for any prizes here. One thing for sure though is he is not afraid to blog in public unlike Dr. Elrod.